Guild Wars 2

What’s “OP”? What can be defined as “OP”? Well, I am glad that Allie got it right and that she hit the heart of the matter:

Allie Murdock.8152:

I don’t think anybody questions that some classes, or should I say specs, are easier to play than others.
I do think the ones that are easier to play shouldn’t be so rewarding, though. It’s hard to balance that correctly in our game right now, though.

Allie Murdock.8152:

Everybody can simply roll over their buttons and play a class well enough, but when you start to get to the higher tiers that doesn’t fly as much. You need to time your stuns/condis/stability/heals/etc. if you want to “play with the big boys.”

I know that there are some specs right now that are particularly spammy, though. We’re hoping that some of the changes we make in the feature build will help with a lot of that. One step at a time!

A spec is “OP” when it can achieve equal/better results than a more difficult to play spec. So, to make it more clear I drew a very easy graph (behold my paint skillz):

ClickOnThisBecauseTheForumDoesn’tSupportOnPostImagesCheckTheAttachments

As you can see, the blue line represents the “OP” spec, while the red one represents a normal, “balanced” spec. The “OPness” of the spec depends on the intercept of the blu line: the higher the intercept, the more “OP” the spec is. The skill coefficient depends on the red line's slope, the higher the slope the easier it is to learn how to play that spec efficiently.
As you probably have already noticed, the difference between the the intercepts of the two lines is what determines how much “OP” a spec is.

I could have added a third line, an almost vertical one starting from the origin, which would have represented the “totally broken” specs: easy to learn and outrageously effìcient.

But let’s make an example:
(please note that this example is based on an hyperbole – the figure of speech, not the geometric one :P – to simplify things)

• Blue line: Hambow Warrior
• Red line: S/F elementalist

The Hambow is really a simple yet very effective build to play. It can be very efficient, but it doesn’t profit that much to the experience gained by the time played.
Instead a S/F elementalist is very hard to learn, and requires the player to spend a lot of time to master it. Initially the spec is very unsatisfying, since the Hambow is better and easier to play but eventually, when the player has gained enough familiarity, it will overcome the hambow. We all know that, in different and not-so-dramatic terms, this is true.

This is the graph:

+1
30 charrrrrrrrr

signed, signed, a thousand times signed!
i’m through with tournaments until this 2xhambow, 1xdecap engi meta filth is gone.

(in the far distant future judging by anets past attempt at an actual nerf,
reducing damage by unnoticeable amounts once every quarter of a year…)

I like the idea behind this chart to illustrate the problem but your example of s/f ele overcoming hambow due to skill isn’t a very good example since it will not overcome it unless the hambow player is really bad.

Unless you are saying that chart is how it should be. In which case I completely agree!

Phantaram.1265:

I like the idea behind this chart to illustrate the problem but your example of s/f ele overcoming hambow due to skill isn’t a very good example since it will not overcome it unless the hambow player is really bad.

Unless you are saying that chart is how it should be. In which case I completely agree!

Beside the fact that a good S/F eles can beat a hambow warrior (just take a look at the 1v1 arenas), I used the term “efficiency” exactly because this is not a 1v1 game but a “capture the point”-based game. A S/F elementalist can be more efficient than a hambow warrior IF played extremely (I’d say insanely) well.

The graph is exactly how it should be, but since there aren’t numerical comparisons, and assuming that the graph represents the current situation, the blue line intercept should be way lower than that, in order to not to force people to play (for example) S/F elementalist for 1 year to achieve the overcoming of the Hambow Warrior.

It’s just a matter of intercepts, slopes and perspective.

Chart is linear

Actual gameplay is not

Too many variables.

This is inaccurate because I know a guy with 10 years of MMO experience and 5000 hours on his warrior whom I can probably beat on my mesmer (about 20 hours) cuz the dude clicks his skills, backpedals and uses keyboard to turn camera…
Also I do believe people can get better even if playing an OP spec for example I can play pwhip thief and still get my kitten handed to me by experienced players. Another example is hambow warriors. When I get them in my soloq game I know I’m gonna have to work overtime because more inexperienced players play OP specs and even if they do well in team fights they will most likely do less damage and deal with pressure much worse than someone with 2k games on a certain less OP class which also kind of proves your point.

Absinth.6917:

Chart is linear

Actual gameplay is not

Too many variables.

DanyK.3842:

snip

I will answer to you both, since your comments are related to the same matter:

That graph isn’t an accurate representation of how SPVP works. Sure, I could have added returns to scale, derivatives and made those lines not perfectly horizontal/45°degrees inclined. I could have even added isoquants, but that wasn’t the point of this thread.

I wanted to explain myself, not to build the ultimate SPVP graph That graph, in its simplicity, is capable of explaining the basics of what Allie said, without requiring any mathematical knowledge.

Frenk.5917:

Phantaram.1265:

I like the idea behind this chart to illustrate the problem but your example of s/f ele overcoming hambow due to skill isn’t a very good example since it will not overcome it unless the hambow player is really bad.

Unless you are saying that chart is how it should be. In which case I completely agree!

Beside the fact that a good S/F eles can beat a hambow warrior (just take a look at the 1v1 arenas), I used the term “efficiency” exactly because this is not a 1v1 game but a “capture the point”-based game. A S/F elementalist can be more efficient than a hambow warrior IF played extremely (I’d say insanely) well.

The graph is exactly how it should be, but since there aren’t numerical comparisons, and assuming that the graph represents the current situation, the blue line intercept should be way lower than that, in order to not to force people to play (for example) S/F elementalist for 1 year to achieve the overcoming of the Hambow Warrior.

It’s just a matter of intercepts, slopes and perspective.

Well in the case of a real organized high lvl game your graph should show the s/f ele graph climbing to a certain point and then plummeting to 0 at the point at which thieves get half a brain and you become a free 5 points for the other team.

Again, I agree that the graph is how the game should be, except for the part where the warriors is completely flat. (I assume you just made it flat to make it simple) The game has a learning curve no matter what you play.

I think you made a little mistake:
(Paint, 10seconds)

Dwaynas Avatar.1562:

I think you made a little mistake:
(Paint, 10seconds)

No, I honestly think that a “balanced” spec, if played extremely well, can overcome an “OP” build, just like Allie said.
But, from a different point of view, you are right: it’s just a matter of how much high would the blue line intercept value be. If it’s high enough, in fact, the situation would be exactly what you drew!

(Amazing spaint skillz, though)

Frenk.5917:

Dwaynas Avatar.1562:

I think you made a little mistake:
(Paint, 10seconds)

No, I honestly think that a “balanced” spec, if played extremely well, can overcome an “OP” build, just like Allie said.
But, from a different point of view, you are right: it’s just a matter of how much high would the blue line intercept value be. If it’s high enough, in fact, the situation would be exactly what you drew!

(Amazing spaint skillz, though)

→ Just take Phantarams answer

Phantaram.1265:

I like the idea behind this chart to illustrate the problem but your example of s/f ele overcoming hambow due to skill isn’t a very good example since it will not overcome it unless the hambow player is really bad.

Unless you are saying that chart is how it should be. In which case I completely agree!

Sometimes you are right Frenk, that some op builds can be beaten by not op builds if you play very good, but at this state in GW2 it’s very rare that this happens.

(And ty paint skillz over 9000)

Dwayna is pretty close. However, “OP” specs efficiency does increase over time, just not nearly as much. In the end, OP should always be greater than balanced. When I fight a skilled player running an OP spec (as in on my level) I will probably lose simply because the spec is stronger. He knows how to do everything perfectly and I know how to do everything perfectly, but his spec is just straight up better. I’m specifically thinking about MM necros btw.

Alright, I made a new graph (yeah, I like graphs – and paint), check the attachment.

I had to make a new graph because we can’t compare builds which have not the same role in a tournament. In this new graph there are 4 lines, each one of them respresents a build.

Restricting the discussion, for example, to “builds for roamers” I identified this classification:

• Blue Line: OP Build, I am thinking about S/P thieves
• Green Line: OP Build, but less than before, I am talking about Shatter mesmers (please notice that this is just an example and I am just making a sort of “ranking”, I am not saying that shatter mesmer is OP)
• Red Line: A balanced build, the same as before: S/F elementalist
• Purple Line: a not very good roaming build, I am talking about PU mesmers

Notice how S/P thief is ALWAYS better than the other builds, when talking about the role all those builds should fill: roaming. Shatter mesmer, however, is better than S/F elementalist unless the elementalist is very confident with the build and has practiced a lot. The third line, the S/F elementalist, becomes “viable” ONLY, as stated above, when the player has played “T2” amount of time, where “T2” depends on the player’s skill. The last line, the purple one, represents the PU mesmers: they are indeed very easy to use but very easy to counter at moderate-high level tournaments (just do not attack him, really. A PU mesmer can kill you only if you try to do so, and can’t contest a point).

This is, I think, a realistic rapresentation of the current situation.
Please note that this is an analysis made for tournament parameters.

Here’s the graph:

No, no,no!!!! THINK OF THE CASULZ GAIZ!!! THEY SHOULD WIN IN SPVP TOO EVERYONE GETS A MEDAL!!!!

Frenk.5917:

Alright, I made a new graph (yeah, I like graphs – and paint), check the attachment.

Now I agree

That diagram is not accurate to what the state of the game is right now.

Player skill is not a large coefficient in Build Wars 2. For example, you cannot use a trash build on a trash class, and overcome all odds purely or mainly from player skill only. I can’t use a warrior with rifle and mace + axe, wearing a celestial amulet, with no healing signet and no cleansing ire, and beat a Flavor of the Year necro — unless the necro player has down’s.

Not trying to be an kitten here or anything, but IMO you’ve got it a bit wrong. You’re looking at how easy it is to become good at a spec, but really you should be looking at how good a spec is relative to other specs.

I see where you’re heading: the game should encourage layered, deep specs, not faceroll ones, but what makes a build ‘overpowered’ is when a spec achieves too much for the sacrifices it makes (in other words, it has minimal counterplays relative to its performance). Tbh, I think this is probably what you’re getting at with your last graph and possibly through the vague use of the word “efficiency”, but I dont think time is really relevant – being overpowered really just means being able to achieve too much relative to other classes. Builds that are a diagonal line, but have a peak “efficiency” much higher than any other build, would also be OP undoubtedly.

This is also why games should balance around top players by comparing the peak efficiency (if you like) of different builds, and seek to educate the worse players to bring them up to that peak. A good example of this is the thief class. At low rankings, thieves are abysmal and a detriment to the team. At the top of the leaderboards thieves are to some extent defining the meta and pushing other classes out. You wouldn’t want to balance the class for mid or lower tier players cause you’d buff them ridiculously for the top players, hence whether it’s OP or not should really be independent of time, and only focussed on the maximum “efficiency” possible.

A healthy game will actually have classes / builds that are easy to pickup to do fairly well for beginners, but also have complex, deep specs that will dominate these builds when played very well. So both types of build you’ve outlined are important. Although not perfect, GW1 was much closer to balance than GW2 because although certain builds (IWAY, Trap rangers, Bloodspike, Thumpers etc) were easy and rolled inexperienced teams, balanced builds would always win if they were coordinated enough.

Ugruk.4069:

No, no,no!!!! THINK OF THE CASULZ GAIZ!!! THEY SHOULD WIN IN SPVP TOO EVERYONE GETS A MEDAL!!!!

This -.-——————-

I disagree with your graphical opinion of an OP spec.

In my opinion an OP spec has a curve, as do balanced specs. In both the curve tappers off. The difference being that the OP spec’s curve achieve’s it’s plateau early and has it’s plateau noticeably higher than a balanced spec.

1. IF, its incredibly powerful and EASY to play, so that it makes even low skill players very deadly.
2. If it changes the meta so that you have to play to counter it, and yet despite best efforts to specifically counter it, its still not only viable but powerful.
3. If it becomes the ‘if your not running this spec on that class’ your an idiot build. In other words if it becomes a mandatory spec.

Some general good rule of thumbs.

Very good points daydream.

Forgetful Phil.6370:

Not trying to be an kitten here or anything, but IMO you’ve got it a bit wrong. You’re looking at how easy it is to become good at a spec, but really you should be looking at how good a spec is relative to other specs.

I see where you’re heading: the game should encourage layered, deep specs, not faceroll ones, but what makes a build ‘overpowered’ is when a spec achieves too much for the sacrifices it makes (in other words, it has minimal counterplays relative to its performance). Tbh, I think this is probably what you’re getting at with your last graph and possibly through the vague use of the word “efficiency”, but I dont think time is really relevant – being overpowered really just means being able to achieve too much relative to other classes. Builds that are a diagonal line, but have a peak “efficiency” much higher than any other build, would also be OP undoubtedly.

This is also why games should balance around top players by comparing the peak efficiency (if you like) of different builds, and seek to educate the worse players to bring them up to that peak. A good example of this is the thief class. At low rankings, thieves are abysmal and a detriment to the team. At the top of the leaderboards thieves are to some extent defining the meta and pushing other classes out. You wouldn’t want to balance the class for mid or lower tier players cause you’d buff them ridiculously for the top players, hence whether it’s OP or not should really be independent of time, and only focussed on the maximum “efficiency” possible.

A healthy game will actually have classes / builds that are easy to pickup to do fairly well for beginners, but also have complex, deep specs that will dominate these builds when played very well. So both types of build you’ve outlined are important. Although not perfect, GW1 was much closer to balance than GW2 because although certain builds (IWAY, Trap rangers, Bloodspike, Thumpers etc) were easy and rolled inexperienced teams, balanced builds would always win if they were coordinated enough.

I 100% agree. I wish this were the case. You basically read my mind but I also think the OP was making the graph on a more general basis and it makes a lot of sense. What you are saying goes deeper into what the OP is trying to say imo. I wish it were just as easy to implement as it is to explain.

Forgetful Phil.6370:

Not trying to be an kitten here or anything, but IMO you’ve got it a bit wrong. You’re looking at how easy it is to become good at a spec, but really you should be looking at how good a spec is relative to other specs.

You are right, that’s why I used the term “efficiency” Hardcounters are part of the game, and their presence determines how much efficient the hard countered class is. Check my second graph!

Shockwave.1230:

I disagree with your graphical opinion of an OP spec.

In my opinion an OP spec has a curve, as do balanced specs. In both the curve tappers off. The difference being that the OP spec’s curve achieve’s it’s plateau early and has it’s plateau noticeably higher than a balanced spec.

Once again, check my second graph!

Forgetful Phil.6370:

This is also why games should balance around top players by comparing the peak efficiency (if you like) of different builds, and seek to educate the worse players to bring them up to that peak. A good example of this is the thief class. At low rankings, thieves are abysmal and a detriment to the team. At the top of the leaderboards thieves are to some extent defining the meta and pushing other classes out. You wouldn’t want to balance the class for mid or lower tier players cause you’d buff them ridiculously for the top players, hence whether it’s OP or not should really be independent of time, and only focussed on the maximum “efficiency” possible.

A healthy game will actually have classes / builds that are easy to pickup to do fairly well for beginners, but also have complex, deep specs that will dominate these builds when played very well. So both types of build you’ve outlined are important. Although not perfect, GW1 was much closer to balance than GW2 because although certain builds (IWAY, Trap rangers, Bloodspike, Thumpers etc) were easy and rolled inexperienced teams, balanced builds would always win if they were coordinated enough.

Hit the nail with that one.
+1

incorrect.

what you claimed as OP spec are not OP spec, but easy to play spec.

dun forget that this game is balanced for casual players.

Deimos Tel Arin.7391:

incorrect.

what you claimed as OP spec are not OP spec, but easy to play spec.

dun forget that this game is balanced for casual players.

Incorrect.

I haven’t given numerical values, thus you do not know how much time you need, for the “balanced build”, to overcome the “OP build”. Would your statement be the same, if the intersection between the two lines had detected a “T” amount of time with “T > 3 years”? I think not.

Check my second graph, it will be more clear.